No, I’m saying “we can’t go back in time” period. As a factual statement. Not as a qualitative assessment of blame. There is plenty of that going around already. Also, I never see any condemnation on this site for any of the actions perpetrated by one side: it’s always about the one with the bigger military force as if it’s a de facto given that Israel should just sit back and let Hamas rain rockets on them indefinitely. What is the proposal going forward? What should Israel do? Are you saying we should go back to the 48 partition proposal? Should we go back to the 62 partition? Two state solution? One state solution from river to sea? What should happen now, realistically, that will get both sides to the table? I’m genuinely curious.
What exactly do you want me to say? I cannot lay out a plan for peace in the Middle East for you; it is literally a euphemism for an unsolvable problem.
From the river to the sea is the only way this resolves in a way that ends the conflict permanently, and if you care at all about justice then Palestine must be what remains.
What exactly do you want me to say? I cannot lay out a plan for peace in the Middle East for you; it is literally a euphemism for an unsolvable problem.
See, I disagree. I think there are options, just like we did in other parts of the world with 3rd party interventions (Bosnia/Herzegovina) etc. I’m not going to go into specifics now, but just now that cynicism is just a vehicle for more blame passing.
From the river to the sea is the only way this resolves in a way that ends the conflict permanently, and if you care at all about justice then Palestine must be what remains.
I don’t quite understand this statement, so forgive me if I misspeak. I’m all for a two state solution, but if I understood correctly, the expression “from the river to the sea” is intended to mean the elimination of all Israeli statehood within this particular region. Even if all nations stopped selling weapons to Israel, Israel has enough armament to wipe out the entire subcontinent and last I checked, the Israelis have no intention to go anywhere. So this isn’t a productive path towards either a 2 state solution or a peace process. Just my 2 cents though, I’m just a guy on Lemmy interested in History.
I’m all for a two state solution, but if I understood correctly, the expression “from the river to the sea” is intended to mean the elimination of all Israeli statehood within this particular region
It’s a call for one state encompassing all of Palestine. The details vary (sometimes it’s used with “drive them to the sea” rhetoric) but the original meaning, which is still used today, is calling for a democratic state where both Jews and Palestinians have full civil rights.
A democratic state managed by who? Isn’t Israel a democratic state, technically? I’m not trying to be facetious. I think herein lies the challenge: once we start to dig into actual policy and details. Slogans are nice, but how do we move from slogans to actionable plans? That’s why I firmly believe a third party is necessary as a mediator of some sort. Israel will definitely not negotiate favorably for Palestinians at this point.
EDIT: btw, im enjoying the discussion and I’m learning a lot. So thanks for your patience.
I mean depends on the specific implementation, but I think a parliamentary democracy is one of the best systems of government in the world and a perfect fit for the situation in a hypothetical one-state solution. Then you don’t need external management, just hold fair elections and let democracy do its thing.
Isn’t Israel a democratic state, technically? I’m not trying to be facetious.
They are, sort of, but the issue lies in a few points:
1-Palestinians are overwhelmingly a minority. Even in a democratic system it’s very easy to discriminate against 20% of the population. This is made worse by the fact that
2-Palestinians are woefully underrepresented in Israeli politics, even for their number. This is at least mostly due to deliberate Israeli disenfranchisement. Look no further than the Knesset reform that got Netanyahu into office: Multiple smaller parties (predominantly left leaning, many Arab) that used to have seats suddenly no longer did.
3-Israel as a state was built by European Jews. Not saying it’s all European Jews, I know about half of Israeli Jews are Middle Eastern, but you only need to look at the Israeli government to get what I mean. Even after full-blown Apartheid was removed (and turned into lesser Apartheid) Palestinians were never given a fair chance.
I don’t see any way for these issues to persist when suddenly 50% of the population is Palestinian.
It seems naive at first glance, but with strong international support I firmly believe it could work.
Yeah and apartheid South Africa had nukes. If you’re going to just pretend that Israel is a permanent fixture that cannot be undone then there is no solution. From the river to the sea is commonly used to imply the removal of Israel, but it’s been used by zionists as well to mean the opposite. The only way this conflict ends is with a single state because Israel will never be satisfied with two.
I’m not sure why you’re getting downvotes --just know it’s not from me.
To your point: Yea, slogans are nice. But Israel is a permanent fixture whether we like it or not. They have enough armament to wipeout half the middle east (and yes, I know, I know, USA bad etc). How do we get concrete actionable plan going with both parties sitting at the table?
I’m not just feeding you slogans I’m telling you that there is no scenario where Israel continues to exist and we get peace. Any deal you come to will just get ignored. They’ve historically ignored ceasefires, ICJ rulings, UN Security Council resolutions, treaties, mandates, international law, and advice and requests from their allies. They have no interest in peace. What they want is the destruction of Gaza, the death or displacement of its inhabitants, and the land it sits on. Even if they succeed in that goal they won’t stop there, they will move on to the West Bank, then Lebanon, then who knows.
If they can’t even use those stockpiled weapons to eliminate a smaller force with inferior arms in a tiny strip of land right next door then why should I have any concern about them using those weapons to “wipe out the Middle East” in some kind of spiteful fit? Do you think they’d have any more success with Hezbollah than they’ve had with Hamas?
No state is permanent, nothing is. Saying that it’s not going anywhere doesn’t make it true. There are historical examples of genocidal and apartheid regimes ending without the surrounding area being rendered into ash; pretending that it’s impossible is absurd.
No, I’m saying “we can’t go back in time” period. As a factual statement. Not as a qualitative assessment of blame. There is plenty of that going around already. Also, I never see any condemnation on this site for any of the actions perpetrated by one side: it’s always about the one with the bigger military force as if it’s a de facto given that Israel should just sit back and let Hamas rain rockets on them indefinitely. What is the proposal going forward? What should Israel do? Are you saying we should go back to the 48 partition proposal? Should we go back to the 62 partition? Two state solution? One state solution from river to sea? What should happen now, realistically, that will get both sides to the table? I’m genuinely curious.
What exactly do you want me to say? I cannot lay out a plan for peace in the Middle East for you; it is literally a euphemism for an unsolvable problem.
From the river to the sea is the only way this resolves in a way that ends the conflict permanently, and if you care at all about justice then Palestine must be what remains.
See, I disagree. I think there are options, just like we did in other parts of the world with 3rd party interventions (Bosnia/Herzegovina) etc. I’m not going to go into specifics now, but just now that cynicism is just a vehicle for more blame passing.
I don’t quite understand this statement, so forgive me if I misspeak. I’m all for a two state solution, but if I understood correctly, the expression “from the river to the sea” is intended to mean the elimination of all Israeli statehood within this particular region. Even if all nations stopped selling weapons to Israel, Israel has enough armament to wipe out the entire subcontinent and last I checked, the Israelis have no intention to go anywhere. So this isn’t a productive path towards either a 2 state solution or a peace process. Just my 2 cents though, I’m just a guy on Lemmy interested in History.
It’s a call for one state encompassing all of Palestine. The details vary (sometimes it’s used with “drive them to the sea” rhetoric) but the original meaning, which is still used today, is calling for a democratic state where both Jews and Palestinians have full civil rights.
A democratic state managed by who? Isn’t Israel a democratic state, technically? I’m not trying to be facetious. I think herein lies the challenge: once we start to dig into actual policy and details. Slogans are nice, but how do we move from slogans to actionable plans? That’s why I firmly believe a third party is necessary as a mediator of some sort. Israel will definitely not negotiate favorably for Palestinians at this point.
EDIT: btw, im enjoying the discussion and I’m learning a lot. So thanks for your patience.
I mean depends on the specific implementation, but I think a parliamentary democracy is one of the best systems of government in the world and a perfect fit for the situation in a hypothetical one-state solution. Then you don’t need external management, just hold fair elections and let democracy do its thing.
They are, sort of, but the issue lies in a few points:
1-Palestinians are overwhelmingly a minority. Even in a democratic system it’s very easy to discriminate against 20% of the population. This is made worse by the fact that
2-Palestinians are woefully underrepresented in Israeli politics, even for their number. This is at least mostly due to deliberate Israeli disenfranchisement. Look no further than the Knesset reform that got Netanyahu into office: Multiple smaller parties (predominantly left leaning, many Arab) that used to have seats suddenly no longer did.
3-Israel as a state was built by European Jews. Not saying it’s all European Jews, I know about half of Israeli Jews are Middle Eastern, but you only need to look at the Israeli government to get what I mean. Even after full-blown Apartheid was removed (and turned into lesser Apartheid) Palestinians were never given a fair chance.
I don’t see any way for these issues to persist when suddenly 50% of the population is Palestinian.
It seems naive at first glance, but with strong international support I firmly believe it could work.
Yeah and apartheid South Africa had nukes. If you’re going to just pretend that Israel is a permanent fixture that cannot be undone then there is no solution. From the river to the sea is commonly used to imply the removal of Israel, but it’s been used by zionists as well to mean the opposite. The only way this conflict ends is with a single state because Israel will never be satisfied with two.
I’m not sure why you’re getting downvotes --just know it’s not from me.
To your point: Yea, slogans are nice. But Israel is a permanent fixture whether we like it or not. They have enough armament to wipeout half the middle east (and yes, I know, I know, USA bad etc). How do we get concrete actionable plan going with both parties sitting at the table?
Don’t worry about the downvotes, I don’t.
I’m not just feeding you slogans I’m telling you that there is no scenario where Israel continues to exist and we get peace. Any deal you come to will just get ignored. They’ve historically ignored ceasefires, ICJ rulings, UN Security Council resolutions, treaties, mandates, international law, and advice and requests from their allies. They have no interest in peace. What they want is the destruction of Gaza, the death or displacement of its inhabitants, and the land it sits on. Even if they succeed in that goal they won’t stop there, they will move on to the West Bank, then Lebanon, then who knows.
If they can’t even use those stockpiled weapons to eliminate a smaller force with inferior arms in a tiny strip of land right next door then why should I have any concern about them using those weapons to “wipe out the Middle East” in some kind of spiteful fit? Do you think they’d have any more success with Hezbollah than they’ve had with Hamas?
No state is permanent, nothing is. Saying that it’s not going anywhere doesn’t make it true. There are historical examples of genocidal and apartheid regimes ending without the surrounding area being rendered into ash; pretending that it’s impossible is absurd.